Using the Dog-Kind of Animal to Disprove Evolution

Page Contents:

• Using the Dog-Kind of Animal to Disprove Evolution
• Pictures of Varieties of Dogs, Including Wolves
• All Dogs are the Same Species
• The Science of Taxonomy — Definition of Species
• Dogs, Wolves, Coyotes, etc can all Produce Fertile Offspring Together
• There is no Cross-Breeding between Dogs, Cats and Bears
• Dogs, Cats and Bears Cannot Mate, but are Related According to Evolutionists
• Conclusion: God Created the Basic Types of Animals
• Endangered Species are Not Species, Only Variations

On this page, I use kinds of dogs as an example that animals are in distinct groups, such as dogs cats or bears, but that there is no overlapping between groups. Each group has a lot of varieties that are able to mate and produce fertile offspring: the definition of the term species.

Dogs, wolves and coyotes are all the same kind of animal. There is no evidence in living things, or in the fossil record, that any basic kind of animal changed into any other basic kind of animal. Each basic kind of animal must have been created.

Back to Top

Pictures of Varieties of Dogs, Including Wolves

Look at the pictures of the pretty dogs:

Oh, wait, those are not dogs. Those are wolves. They are not even the same species of wolf! They are two different species of wolf.

You can tell right off that these are different species of wolf by the fact that they are different colors, right?

But, wait a minute! Look at all those pictures of dogs below. Hey, they all look different from each other, and they are all dogs. What is the deal?

Back to Top

All Dogs are the Same Species

All of these dogs look very different from each other. They are different sizes and different colors, plus, they have different coat textures. But, they are all the same species: The Domestic Dog. How then can the grey wolf and the red wolf be different species? They look the same except for the color fur.

The deal is, we KNOW that all dogs are the same species because we know that they are the same species. Yes, you read that correctly. If a scientist came along and saw a poodle or a St. Bernard living in the wild, he would publish a paper on the new species he has found.

But, since we have lived so closely with dogs for hundreds of years, they would not dare try to fool us by telling us that a poodle is a different species than a St. Bernard. We know that dogs are dogs are dogs because the dog next door jumps over the fence to have babies with our dog. Then, the babies were more dogs.

But, we are told that all the little variation in groups of  dogs (and bears, cats,etc) is a new species .

Back to Top

The Science of Taxonomy — Definition of Species

Carl Linnaeus is called the Father of Taxonomy. He developed the classification system that became what now called taxonomy. He was just trying to categorize the types of animals to see how many kinds of animal that God created.

But, evolution-believing scientists have taken his system of categorizing animals into the kinds that God kinds, and decided that it now shows evolutionary relationships.

Carl Linnaeus defined the word Species like this (paraphrase): If two animals can mate and produce fertile offspring then they are the same species.

He was trying to find the maximum number of animals that God created in order to have all the variations that we now have.

Back to Top

Dogs, Wolves, Coyotes, etc can all Produce Fertile Offspring Together

It is well known that different species of wild dogs can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring together. But, is the word cross-breed really accurate?

Cross-breed means to mate to different species together. Wolfdog and coydog are names of two of the cross-bred variations. Carl Linnaeus. who defined the term species defined it that if they can mate and have babies then they are the same species. What is the deal? Why are not dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc all the same species?

Back to Top

There is no Cross-Breeding between Dogs, Cats and Bears

The definition of species has changed just in my lifetime. Now, the term species is giving to every small various within a type of animal. Why? Because there is not enough evidence to prove evolution (because it is not true).

Dogs only make dogs, bears only make bears, cats only make cats. There is no cross-breeding between cats and dogs, or between dogs and bears, or between bears and cats. But, they are in the same Order Carnivore, meaning that they are related to each other evolutionarily-speaking. (again, by using the categories that Carl Linnaeus made to name the kinds of animals that God created.)

Back to Top

Dogs, Cats and Bears Cannot Mate, but are Related According to Evolutionists

But, how can cats, dogs and bears be related if they are isolated within their own reproductive circle? Exactly. That is what evolutionists are trying to hide. If they define a zillion species of dogs, a zillion species of cats, and a zillion species of bears, we will be fooled into believing that new animals are being developed by evolution all the time.

Because evolution is called a fact (even though there is no proof) they have to make more evidence or people might quit believing it.

Back to Top

Conclusion: God Created the Basic Types of Animals

In reality, God created the basic kinds of animals: dogs, cats, bears, etc. Each basic kind of animal has the capacity for adapting to any ecological zone they come across. That is not evolution, that is good planning. That is only the innate genetic diversity that God programmed into all his creations.

Back to Top

Endangered Species are Not Species, Only Variations

A population of animals (or humans, too), who only interbreed with each other will start to look like each other. This family resemblance is what is miss-named a species. Then, since that species that only developed in one place is named an endangered species because it is not any place else.

• • • • •

In ten years, after the isolated population of goldfish in my backyard pond has been only reproducing with each other, I am going to have an endangered species of goldfish. I am going go ask for federal funding to protect their habitat.

X

Back to Top

Evolutionists: What kind of animal gave birth to the first bat?

All bats are in the order Chiroptera. Since they are in the same order, evolutionarily speaking, they are all related to each other. Actually, you can tell by looking at them that bats are related to each other, and are probably really variations of the first two bats that God created, in my humble opinion.

But, let’s just talk about evolution for a second. Evolution claims the gradual descent of all creatures from the “simple” cell (no cells are simple, they are incredibly complex, but I digress) Many, many variations occurring over time, and then some animal gives birth to the first bat. My question is which animal gave birth to the first bat?

A mammal with wings could not have given birth to the first bat, since all mammals with wings are called bats. A bat could not have given birth to the first bat. That would be impossible, right? Bats are mammals with wings. Bats are the only mammals with wings. No other mammal except bats has wings. So, which animal gave birth to the first bat?

The fossil record shows that bats have always been bats, so there is no help there. Plus, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, anyway. (oh, really, you crazy creationist?)

Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist, published "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," in Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977) promoting a new theory of evolution called Punctuated Equilibrium. This new theory was needed, according to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, to explain why there are no transitional fossil forms.

The fossil record, claims evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, does not show the gradual descent from one basic type of animal to another basic type of animal ( invertebrates to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or birds.)

So, let’s get back to my question to evolutionists: What kind of animal gave birth to the first bat?

Here is my answer:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and bats.

X

 Visit My Windows Live Space

Whale evolution: Finally the proof has been found…

 

One warm sunny day a cow decides to go for a swim and walks down to the beach.

 

The water is fine and she  enjoys the swim.  Her feet are magically becoming flippers and she is careful not to leave any fossils.

  

Again as if by magic, her hind feet are transformed into a tail and again she is careful not to leave a single fossil

 

Without any fossil evidence this theory is an udder failure.

 

E. Norbert Smith, Ph.D. God of Creation.com 

Please note: I got permission to post this story from the person who wrote this and paid for the pictures to be drawn. He is a friend of mine. Please respect his intellectual property. If you want permission to use the story and pictures, please contact him though his website. Thank you.

 

 Visit My Windows Live Space

What a creationist believes. Or: “Hey X, don’t you understand science?”

Oh, no, here goes X again, talking crazy about her faith. Oh, well, she’s a nice enough person in spite of this craziness. Oh, heck, what is she ranting about this time:

Most of what people talk about when they mention proof of evolution are minor variations within the species of animals: different sized beaks on finches, different colors of moths, speaking of the examples I was taught in school. But, these minor variations are then used to prove that major changes can and did happen.

It is a proven fact that there can be many variations within a species of animal. These minor changes are made from losing information as I will explain below.

In order for these changes to happen: invertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds, information has to be added.

Here is the creationist explanation for the proven minor differences within animals:

God created the basic “generic” types of animals, for instance bear, cat, and dog, with genes for every possible variation. That is because the animals have to survive in all the different places in the world.

As the animals spread out, different groups of animals settled in different climate and geological zones. With all the various genes, some of the animals were going to survive in every condition on earth. The ones best able to survive the conditions are the ones that were able to pass down those genes.

As time goes by, there are isolated gene populations in all the various ecological niches. As the gene pool can only reproduce with others in the same isolated gene  pool, a “family resemblance” starts to appear.

Of the generic God-designed dog type of animal, for instance, the different groups with the family resemblance are given different names: wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, etc. And, within each of those groups, even smaller groups are named for even smaller differences: Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) and the Red Wolf (Canis rufus), for instance.

As I said, many will call this evolution. But, evolution is said to add information. For a dinosaur to become a bird, it has to add genetic  information to make wings, at the very least.

The domestic dog is just one variation of the generic God-designed dog type of animal. They, too, end up in isolated populations. The AKC, American Kennel Club, for instance, lists hundreds of “breeds” of dogs. These breeds of dogs are in very small isolated groups: They only reproduce with others inside that same gene pool or they will become a mixed breed.

If all the dog breeds were let loose, and allowed to breed with each other, they would start to look like the wild types of dogs: wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, etc.

So, there are hundreds of different dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club. They are all very different from each other. Is that evolution? No. Like I said, “evolution” has to add information. In reality, the small isolated populations of dog breeds have lost information.

Take the West Highland White Terrier, for instance.

Westies have lost the information to be any color except white. In addition, they have lost the information to be any size except small. No new information was added, information was lost.

All of the proven differences within types of animals are evidence of lost information not added information.

These minor variations within types of animals are due to lost information. These minor variations can not be used to prove the major changes from invertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds. Those major changes would require that information be added.

I know that most of you do not believe this, and I understand. I respect your right to believe as you wish. I am just telling you what I believe.

(If anybody made it this far down, Click Here.)

X

 Visit My Windows Live Space